Phase One IQ250 - 11 things you need to know, and Q&A

[RVB]

Johhny,

Remember, I don't do sales. I'm a techie. Obviously I care about the presentation of the products that my company sells, but I also care very much about putting out good information. To my eye that ISO1600 file, with no noise reduction, is significantly ahead of any medium format file I've seen before. If you disagree I'd ask you to wait until I can post a raw file for you to play with and work up to your preferred aesthetic.

We'll have a variety of raw files, including ISO6400, ready to post when 7.2 is available publicly. Until then having the raws wouldn't do you much good! This isn't a massive conspiracy (likewise to the the crowd that seems to think not prematurely posting our conclusions on tech camera usage implies there must be a conspiracy to deny you information - relax, it's been 1 working day since the announcement, and we haven't even gotten our demo units yet; we just want to make sure we provide a complete and verified report rather than a mix of speculation and the manufacturer's internal testing; we're asking for a few days).

D800 as a benchmark for ISO comes directly from looking at our user base. Those who own a digital back have as their two most common "other" cameras a 5DIII and a D800. The vast majority of them have those cameras in case they need higher ISO performance than their digital back.

The relevant question is absolutely not "is this the best high ISO camera in the world?" but rather "can I continue to use my DB when the light starts to drop instead of carrying and switching to my dSLR kit?"

Those who need the absolute best ISO cameras in the world would pick something like the D4 over a D800 despite the resolution difference (perhaps even considering the lower resolution a benefit since many ultra-high-iso shooters are in genres like sports or PJ where they shoot very rapidly, don't need to print large, and need to edit and deliver quickly). They would never consider medium format for that because smaller format cameras will ALWAYS have the advantage on things like stabilization technology, ultra-fast glass, fast long zooms which go hand and hand with the genres that need ultra high ISO.

It's more an issue of "is ISO 1600 usable" than "can I shoot at ISO 256000".

This 1600 iso shot is slightly front focused but the noise performance seems impressive to my eyes..

And as cheap and useful as the Canikon's are there is no high speed flash sync..

 

[MaxKißler]

This 1600 iso shot is slightly front focused but the noise performance seems impressive to my eyes..

And as cheap and useful as the Canikon's are there is no high speed flash sync..

May I ask in which situation I might need fast flash sync speeds and high ISOs at the same time? Thanks.

 

[RVB]

May I ask in which situation I might need fast flash sync speeds and high ISOs at the same time? Thanks.

Maybe not too many scenarios where you need them at the same time but its nice to have both options in the same camera,this is the first camera on the market that can do this.

One area where high iso is useful with is when you don't have enough flash power to shoot at small apertures if you want DOF.

 

[dougpeterson]

May I ask in which situation I might need fast flash sync speeds and high ISOs at the same time? Thanks.

Only you can tell us when YOU need it.

The images from Tim Kemple I think well illustrate where having both is very useful for creative lighting.

When mixing ambient, strobe, and motion (whether dance, sport, or handheld shooting) it's nice to have a shutter speed fast enough to stop the motion (if desired) while still picking up enough ambient to provide environmental light, while still syncing with strobe for.

If you went to a lower ISO in some of these shots you'd end up with a dragged shutter speed which would result in sharp-then-blur outline on the subject being hit by strobe (the sharp from the short flash duration, the blur afterward from the ambient light hitting the subject throughout a longer exposure).

You could do this with a Canon or Nikon with their "fast sync" settings, but those settings actually turn a Canon/Nikon flash into a continuous light source, and dramatically drop their effective output, meaning you'd need a whole lot of them (my guess is for this shot you'd need 16, but it's only a guess) rather than just a single strobe like you can do with true leaf-shutter based flash sync.

Tim Kemple - first day with the IQ250 | Phase One - YouTube - [representative shot at 3:49]

Again - I have no idea how relevant this kind of control of shutter speed, ambient, and strobe are for you. It's very possible you never have and never will need such a feature. But for those who can use it, there are very few other options.

 

[RVB]

"If you went to a lower ISO in some of these shots you'd end up with a dragged shutter speed which would result in sharp-then-blur outline on the subject being hit by strobe (the sharp from the short flash duration, the blur afterward from the ambient light hitting the subject throughout a longer exposure)."

this is another good reason,boosting ambient light while using the high flash sync to freeze action....

 

[MaxKißler]

Only you can tell us when YOU need it.

The images from Tim Kemple I think well illustrate where having both is very useful for creative lighting.

When mixing ambient, strobe, and motion (whether dance, sport, or handheld shooting) it's nice to have a shutter speed fast enough to stop the motion (if desired) while still picking up enough ambient to provide environmental light, while still syncing with strobe for.

If you went to a lower ISO in some of these shots you'd end up with a dragged shutter speed which would result in sharp-then-blur outline on the subject being hit by strobe (the sharp from the short flash duration, the blur afterward from the ambient light hitting the subject throughout a longer exposure).

You could do this with a Canon or Nikon with their "fast sync" settings, but those settings actually turn a Canon/Nikon flash into a continuous light source, and dramatically drop their effective output, meaning you'd need a whole lot of them (my guess is for this shot you'd need 16, but it's only a guess) rather than just a single strobe like you can do with true leaf-shutter based flash sync.

Tim Kemple - first day with the IQ250 | Phase One - YouTube - [representative shot at 3:49]

Again - I have no idea how relevant this kind of control of shutter speed, ambient, and strobe are for you. It's very possible you never have and never will need such a feature. But for those who can use it, there are very few other options.

Thanks for your explanation. I thought about this scenario before and concluded opening the aperture to let in more ambient light would do the trick. Of course at the cost of a reduced dof.

One more question: Does the DF allow rear sync with the leaf shutter lenses? I know it's possible with the focal plane shutter but am not sure about the LS lenses. In the example with slower shutter speeds you mentioned I'd change to rear sync in order not to have the motion trails ahead of the subject.

Thanks

 

[MaxKißler]

"If you went to a lower ISO in some of these shots you'd end up with a dragged shutter speed which would result in sharp-then-blur outline on the subject being hit by strobe (the sharp from the short flash duration, the blur afterward from the ambient light hitting the subject throughout a longer exposure)."

this is another good reason,boosting ambient light while using the high flash sync to freeze action....

Or you could remain at base ISO and lock out all ambient light to avoig having any motion blur at all. Obviously this would turn day to night but if you only have a small area as background, you could use secondary flashs to light that up. Then again, it also depends on the desired look.

 

[dougpeterson]

Or you could remain at base ISO and lock out all ambient light to avoig having any motion blur at all. Obviously this would turn day to night but if you only have a small area as background, you could use secondary flashs to light that up. Then again, it also depends on the desired look.

Absolutely. Some looks you could accomplish without fast flash sync OR high ISO. Others could be accomplish with only one of the two.

But some looks require both.

When I'm discussing backs with clients I often lead with the limitations. One does not want a significant amount of one's work to be limited by the equipment they use. So if a client is considering a back which cannot do a long exposure and they will be constantly banging up against that limit and having to find work arounds then I don't think that's a good system for them. If in several years of shooting they have only taken a handful of images that would be borderline then it's simply not an issue.

Not having to work around your equipment is very freeing. You can find a hack or workaround to most shooting scenarios. Even the one I described could be done with a Canon; it's just you might need 16 (or 32, or 64) flash units to create it, and you might need to shoot multiple plates to composite (e.g. to match the resolution the IQ250 gives in one frame). Or you might need to shoot the biker in one shot while tracking his motion (to greatly reduce blur) and shoot the environment separately. It's just nice when you don't have to do such tricks or hacks and your gear simply works with you to create your vision.

The IQ250, with it's combination of high and low ISO performance, high resolution, high flash sync speed, and compatibility with a broad variety of bodies and lenses, can do things easily that would be very very difficult with any other system.

Naturally there are other tools (e.g. a D4 with a fast 300mm lens) that could do some things easily that would be very very difficult with the IQ250 (like low light fast moving high frame rate sports).

Different tools for different needs - let us pray we never end up with one camera company or worse, one camera, that dominates the market so thoroughly we don't have such a gluttony of good tools!

 

[archivue]

color fidelity ?

 

[MaxKißler]

Absolutely. Some looks you could accomplish without fast flash sync OR high ISO. Others could be accomplish with only one of the two.

But some looks require both.

When I'm discussing backs with clients I often lead with the limitations. One does not want a significant amount of one's work to be limited by the equipment they use. So if a client is considering a back which cannot do a long exposure and they will be constantly banging up against that limit and having to find work arounds then I don't think that's a good system for them. If in several years of shooting they have only taken a handful of images that would be borderline then it's simply not an issue.

Not having to work around your equipment is very freeing. You can find a hack or workaround to most shooting scenarios. Even the one I described could be done with a Canon; it's just you might need 16 (or 32, or 64) flash units to create it, and you might need to shoot multiple plates to composite (e.g. to match the resolution the IQ250 gives in one frame). Or you might need to shoot the biker in one shot while tracking his motion (to greatly reduce blur) and shoot the environment separately. It's just nice when you don't have to do such tricks or hacks and your gear simply works with you to create your vision.

The IQ250, with it's combination of high and low ISO performance, high resolution, high flash sync speed, and compatibility with a broad variety of bodies and lenses, can do things easily that would be very very difficult with any other system.

Naturally there are other tools (e.g. a D4 with a fast 300mm lens) that could do some things easily that would be very very difficult with the IQ250 (like low light fast moving high frame rate sports).

Different tools for different needs - let us pray we never end up with one camera company or worse, one camera, that dominates the market so thoroughly we don't have such a gluttony of good tools!

I couldn't agree more. Don't get me wrong, just because I'm using my P1 back on a H2 doesn't mean I have an axe to grind against team Phase One. In fact I wanted to keep my Aptus22 and only upgrade to a DF at a time when the DF+ was already being sold. Unfortunately, no dealer here in Europe was selling one for a reasonable price. So I upgraded to a much better camera platform without financial loss. In a way, MFD helt it's value quite well.

Still I think the IQ250 is a step in the wrong direction. ISO performance is just, at least in my opinion, of minor importance with MF cameras...

 

[torger]

Still I think the IQ250 is a step in the wrong direction. ISO performance is just, at least in my opinion, of minor importance with MF cameras...

Out of curiousity, what would you like the step to be instead?

 

[jlm]

i think what is being glossed over is that Phase is an autofocus SLR camera maker that takes a MF digital back. that type of primary usage directs the development of the back. compared to the tech camera user (a minority) live view has less importance, for example

 

[MaxKißler]

I know this is wishful thinking but I'd really like to see larger sensors. I think 645 full frame (or nearly ff) is mandatory but a larger then 645 yet a bit smaller then 6x7 film sensor, preferably with 4x5 aspect ratio (like 60mm x 48mm), would be awesome. These sensors don't necessarily need to have such a high pixel density like the current backs.

Even if that's not possible to produce, a FF 645 sensor with a pixel density of 7,2 or 6,8 micron would be cool. I may be a heretic but I don't believe in high mp counts. I think a large sensor with relatively low mp count can produce files with such clarity that will in praxis enlarge equally well like sensors with a high mp count. As some have already mentioned before "there is something about these fat pixel backs" and I totally agree.

I have the impression that a lot of people who use an IQ180 (not here in this forum but photographers I know) shoot at apertures that limit the backs resolution due to diffraction. And another small pixel back with relatively small sensor surface is IMO not contributing to better image quality...

 

[RVB]

I know this is wishful thinking but I'd really like to see larger sensors. I think 645 full frame (or nearly ff) is mandatory but a larger then 645 yet a bit smaller then 6x7 film sensor, preferably with 4x5 aspect ratio (like 60mm x 48mm), would be awesome. These sensors don't necessarily need to have such a high pixel density like the current backs.

Even if that's not possible to produce, a FF 645 sensor with a pixel density of 7,2 or 6,8 micron would be cool. I may be a heretic but I don't believe in high mp counts. I think a large sensor with relatively low mp count can produce files with such clarity that will in praxis enlarge equally well like sensors with a high mp count. As some have already mentioned before "there is something about these fat pixel backs" and I totally agree.

I have the impression that a lot of people who use an IQ180 (not here in this forum but photographers I know) shoot at apertures that limit the backs resolution due to diffraction. And another small pixel back with relatively small sensor surface is IMO not contributing to better image quality...

Max,I think that one of the real benefits of the small pixels (sub 6um) is that they raise Nyquist and there is less moire thanks to the higher sampling frequency,

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Seems to me this back is for the wedding,fashion photographer and it ends there. Which is great for that type of shooter. Landscape folks it's the 260 and equivalent. Which is fine as it is looking for that market to fill.

 

[MaxKißler]

Max,I think that one of the real benefits of the small pixels (sub 6um) is that they raise Nyquist and there is less moire thanks to the higher sampling frequency,

To be honest, I shot the Aptus22 for quite some time and a ZD Back before it. I never had issues with moire. Not that it wasn't there (that would make me one hell of a bad photographer.. ) but with todays raw converters it either fixed itself most of the time or was very easy to get rid of.
If I was only shooting fabrics or art reproduction I'd do so with a different back/camera or past diffraction limit.

 

[Shashin]

Diffraction limit is based on format not pixel pitch. With any given format, a high rez back will always have more higher frequency detail than a lower rez one regardless of diffraction. Diffraction impacts an image less than DoF. 100% monitor view is not a real world viewing condition, at least for anyone that is not a photographer.

 

[torger]

I know this is wishful thinking but I'd really like to see larger sensors.

For CCDs it's easy in terms of technology, it's already done but not in areas of (normal) photography.

However, business case for the current back manufacturers is a problem. Both Hasselblad and Phase One is limited to 645 by their own camera systems. They would never ever make a high-end back that cannot be run on their own cameras.

Sinar is the closest to be able to do something like that. They make backs, and they're not locked to a specific sensor size. But to make a field-usable back they need a new digital back platform (they have only tethered today) and that will require lots of development investment, meaning that they must be able to sell several hundreds of backs over a few years to make it go around if the price should be "buyable" (ie sub $40K).

Once they have a digital back platform providining it with various sensor sizes is probably less of a cost, assuming they can get sensors from the same manufacturer. Dalsa do make custom sizes by the way. I don't know what the cost of custom sizes is though, it may prove that it makes a business case impossible, say if a custom-size sensor would cost $15k alone or something (rather than $1-3k standard MF sizes cost).

If anything would go larger than FF I think 56x56mm in a joint DHW/Sinar project is the most likely to succeed. Commercial platform would be Hy6 and tech cams, and you'd provide V mount for legacy uses on V system (which could be quite popular I think, but probably not enough to support a commercial business case), using an interchangeable mount platform that Sinar has had before.

(I dream about the following: CMOS sensors with wide angular response and the return of the ~48x36mm format as an option to 54x41mm, all in a tech camera friendly format with good enough live view to replace sliding backs and renew the popularity of the view camera, and securing the large format lens design tradition)

 

[MaxKißler]

... 100% monitor view is not a real world viewing condition, at least for anyone that is not a photographer.

You might want to tell the agencies yourself...

 

[Shashin]

You might want to tell the agencies yourself...

And they can't see diffraction in the final image. It is just a photographer's thing.